Net Closed On Whitby Trawlermeb

[big_cod]

The anser is no the fines cannot be increased that is what the barrister has told them.

[Leon Roskilly]

Quite a few reports now, listed at:

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=449

 

TL - leon

[Guest binatone]

Just so this EU cynic is clear on events .. Would it be the case that all these high profile, and resource intensive raids occuring across the northern part of the EU ( major raids is Eire, plus the local ones that have been highlighted on this forum) are related?

 

Im glad to see effective enforcement at last, but given its taken decades to happen, and is now happening just after the UK fleet has been slashed in half, I have to wonder what the purpose is?

 

A couple of thoughts/questions:

 

1.) Why now?

 

2.) This enforcement will have cost serious money; is this to be an ongoing thing or just "scapegoating" as the commercials seem to see it?

 

If this is the new regime, then im sure all will adjust to it. If otoh its a brief period where the goverment throws money at a problem to avoid an EU fine, then its of no worth IMHO.

 

Anyone got any idea?

 

Chris.

Good point indeed jaffa.

Why now?

Lets wait and see if the recreational community with all there expertise can work it out?

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

[guernseybass]

I'm curious, why does the timing and motivation matter ?

 

surely law breaking is law breaking ?

 

and i think the number of EA prosections this year has increased massively for estuary netsman in the SW, and for unlicensed freshwater anglers across the country to the extent that the EA now releases monthly figures of fines convictions.

 

I also remember reading of earlier crackdowns this year on commercial ports so given all that, i think its just part of a trend rather than temporary making the timing irrelevant.

 

what was their defence, by the way ?

 

GB

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Ken are your views on Black fish unchanged?

 

I don't like any form of black fish, but the ones who I really find hard to swallow are the part time gill netters doing it for the table who purport to be within the law.

 

They are not only catching landing and selling black fish they are also doing legitimate commercials out of a living.

 

I am waiting for DEFRA to bring them to court!!

Edited December 2, 2005 by Ken Davison South Wales

[Leon Roskilly]

I am waiting for DEFRA to bring them to court!!

 

No longer DEFRA's responsibility but the new Marine Fisheries Agency.

 

See: http://www.mfa.gov.uk/

 

Report suspected breaches of regulations to your local office (listed on the website)

 

or should it be here?

 

http://www.mfa.gov.uk/contact/notify.htm

 

Tight Lines - leon

Edited December 2, 2005 by Leon Roskilly

[Norm B]

I'm curious, why does the timing and motivation matter ?

 

surely law breaking is law breaking ?

 

and i think the number of EA prosections this year has increased massively for estuary netsman in the SW, and for unlicensed freshwater anglers across the country to the extent that the EA now releases monthly figures of fines convictions.

 

I also remember reading of earlier crackdowns this year on commercial ports so given all that, i think its just part of a trend rather than temporary making the timing irrelevant.

 

what was their defence, by the way ?

 

GB

I think their defence was that the fishing was so bad that they had to break the law to make a living, sob, sob. Where's my cheque book.

 

Just so this EU cynic is clear on events .. Would it be the case that all these high profile, and resource intensive raids occuring across the northern part of the EU ( major raids is Eire, plus the local ones that have been highlighted on this forum) are related?

 

Im glad to see effective enforcement at last, but given its taken decades to happen, and is now happening just after the UK fleet has been slashed in half, I have to wonder what the purpose is?

 

A couple of thoughts/questions:

 

1.) Why now?

 

2.) This enforcement will have cost serious money; is this to be an ongoing thing or just "scapegoating" as the commercials seem to see it?

 

If this is the new regime, then im sure all will adjust to it. If otoh its a brief period where the goverment throws money at a problem to avoid an EU fine, then its of no worth IMHO.

 

Anyone got any idea?

 

Yes. As I read it, the EU is clamping down on Governments that aren't doing enough to deter "ILLEGAL OVERFISHING" and fining them serious sums of money. The French have already been fined millions of euros, whether they pay remains to be seen but Tony, wanting to be at the "Heart of Europe" cannot be seen to be allowing blatant lawbreaking by 'English fishermen', he's not bothered by Scottish illegal fishing though as that's not his problem.

 

 

Chris.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Norm B

[slackline]

10 skippers 11 weeks thats 110 weeks fishinginto £475.000 =£4318 gross a week take off fuel and other expences then share out whats left on average 8 ways not a lot left

10 skippers fined a total of £122.800 +£40,00 costs =£ 162.800 = £16,280 fine each for the 11 weeks =£1,480 a week not good bussiness

[Guest Feels like Winter to me]

No costs on that either Slackline.

 

Am I right in thinking that the only skipper not on the list was the one the royal navey allegedly threatened to blow out of the water a few months ago?

 

I saw some mention somewhere of the skippers wages being between 8 and 20 thousand per year. Is it really that low???

 

I would like to ask the question of who will pay the fines ??? Will it be the skippers themselves or will it be taken from the boats future profits prior to paying wages?? That is an honest question before anyone takes it any other way.

 

Ken, sorry I should have been more precise. What I meant was in the past you have made comment that illegal fishing probably isnt that big a problem. I just wondered if you still thought that were true.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Feels like Winter to me

[The doctor]

Just to add a couple of answers and make a couple of points!!!!

 

Yes I was in sunny Hull today, and yesterday and the day before and the d.......................

 

Why Now? well I think someone commented earlier that HM government appear to have bigger balls than in yesteryear (or words to that effect). The truth is that fish stocks and marine resources are not considered by all and sundry to be the sole property of the commercial sector of 'The Industry'. There has been a mind shift in DEFRA (well some of the ministers at least) with regard to the best value usage of our publically owned resources, and if we are to head off critisism from other member states then we really have to get our own house in order, something that has been a long time coming, but is beginning to actually happen.

 

Many people have asked the question why now, the answer is quite simple; why would the EU and member states (including the UK) spend a lot of time, effort and money on a recovery plan, whilst incurring hardship on white fish communities, in order to try and recover the cod stocks through the cod recovery programme and ignore the enforcement side of the equation. The truth is that if cod recovery is to be acheived there must be total compliance, if the ICES scientists believe that cod stocks are at a certain level, the EU commission then does a deal to allow a certain TAC, this TAC is taken up by the member states, usually in its entirity. However, when some states are taking a considerable amount more, then the only viable option is to reduce further the TAC, lets say that the TAC is 27,300 tonnes in 2004/05, the full TAC is taken up, but some fishermen (lets say in Whitby for example) are taking additional cod out of the biomass which is not accounted for, lets say as a conservative guestimate 200 tonnes. If a number of fleets are doing this then the reason that cod recovery is not working is that the real take is in the region of 35,000 tonnes, just short of the actual spawning stock biomass. There is in the North Sea a significant missing component, this is when the projected SSB is taken into account, coupled with landings, natural mortality and discards; there is still a large chunk of the stock(s) missing. I wonder where that went then.

 

I recently attended a meeting in Brussels where cod recovery was discussed, a comment was made from the UK delegation, that compliance was almost 100%, which is not considered to be the case for other member states. An additional comment came from around the table to indicate this was very much the case in the UK and certainly along the Yorkshire coast where fishermen were aiming to protect stocks and that it was no longer in their interests or possible to under-record fish (this final comment came from one of those Whitby fishermen in court over the last couple of days). And they wonder why nobody believes or trusts them anymore.

 

Enforcement is the key to sustainable fisheries management, there can never be any justification for under recording or the landing of illegal fish by who ever, or whatever size of boat. I for one applaud the efforts of the SFI or as we should now call them the marine agency, long may it continue, and hopefully the commercial sector will get the point very very quickly.

 

Just because the SFI have been lax in the past does not excuse a continuation of ineffective enforcement, they have a lot of catching up to do.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Doc.